Do Gun Waiting Periods Turn Citizens Into Victims?

Gun rights activist Colion Noir opened his recent video with a chilling picture: a family at home, awakened by the sound of breaking glass, knowing someone has entered their house. The father remembers buying a gun the day before, passing the background check, and paying for it. For a brief second, he feels relief – until reality sets in.

Under New Mexico’s now-blocked seven-day waiting period law, he cannot take that gun home until a week later. The tool he bought to defend his family is locked away, not because of a criminal record or failed check, but because the government said “wait.” Noir argued that in such moments, the waiting period doesn’t save lives – it endangers them.

The Appeals Court Steps In

That exact law, enacted in 2024, was just struck down by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Noir highlighted the decision, noting that on August 19, 2025, the court ruled the waiting period likely violates the Second Amendment. The split 2–1 ruling blocked enforcement of the law and sent the case back to a lower court. For many, it marked a major legal victory. But as Noir emphasized, the bigger issue is not only constitutional but practical: when seconds matter, forcing law-abiding citizens to wait a week “is state-sponsored helplessness.”

Cooling-Off or Forced Vulnerability?

Supporters of waiting periods argue they provide a “cooling-off” window to prevent impulsive violence or suicide. New Mexico’s governor, Michelle Lujan Grisham, defended the law as “carefully crafted to minimize gun violence while respecting Second Amendment rights.” But Noir dismissed that logic as “arrogant,” saying criminals, abusers, and stalkers don’t wait seven days. Only the law-abiding are left in limbo. In his words, “You don’t stop crime by forcing the victim to wait. You don’t prevent violence by making sure the law-abiding are defenseless for a week.”

A Tragic Example: The Case of Carol Bowne

To drive his point home, Noir revisited the story of Carol Bowne, a 39-year-old New Jersey hairdresser. After being threatened by her ex-boyfriend, a convicted felon, Bowne applied for a handgun permit. She installed alarms, cameras, and obtained a restraining order. But she was forced to wait for government approval. Forty-three days later – still without her firearm – her ex attacked and fatally stabbed her. Noir called Bowne’s death “not caution, but cruelty,” arguing that delays turn law-abiding citizens into victims while doing nothing to disarm predators.

The Legal Lens: Mark W. Smith Weighs In

Attorney and gun rights commentator Mark W. Smith, host of The Four Boxes Diner, broke down the court’s decision in detail. In his analysis, the 10th Circuit correctly recognized that the right to “keep and bear arms” necessarily includes the right to acquire them. “You cannot keep or bear arms if you do not first and foremost acquire them,” Smith explained. He compared the right to buy a gun to the right to buy a printing press for free speech or a Bible for religious freedom. Without acquisition, the underlying right is meaningless.

A Textual and Historical Problem

Smith stressed that New Mexico’s law failed the Supreme Court’s Bruen test, which requires modern gun laws to align with historical traditions dating back to the founding era. The state could point to no 18th-century equivalent of a universal waiting period. For that reason alone, the law lacked constitutional grounding. The court, Smith said, saw through arguments about “cooling-off periods” and declared them infringements, not safeguards.

Equal Rights, Not Second-Class Rights

One of the most striking parts of Smith’s analysis was his comparison to other constitutional rights. Imagine forcing journalists to wait a week before publishing, or defendants to wait a month before contacting an attorney. Such restrictions would be laughed out of court. Yet, as Smith pointed out, states often treat the Second Amendment as if it were “a second-class right subject to different rules.” The 10th Circuit’s ruling pushed back, reminding governments that constitutional guarantees do not come with built-in timers.

The Human Factor Noir Emphasized

While Smith focused on the legal arguments, Noir hammered the human element. He described women fleeing abusive partners, families caught in riots, and ordinary citizens realizing the police cannot arrive in time. For them, waiting periods aren’t theoretical – they can be lethal. Noir recalled the 2020 riots in California, when first-time gun buyers rushed to stores only to be told they would have to wait days before taking their purchases home. In his view, those laws didn’t promote safety. They left innocent people “betrayed.”

Why Only Guns?

Noir also questioned why waiting periods apply exclusively to firearms. If the logic is preventing impulsive decisions, why not impose delays on alcohol, pills, or cars – all of which can also be misused to cause death? He argued the selective application exposes the real motive: not safety, but control. “They only put it on the tool that empowers you to defend your life against someone else,” Noir said. That, he suggested, tells you everything you need to know.

Rights Without Access Are Hollow

From my own point of view, both Noir and Smith expose a fundamental truth: rights without timely access are hollow. A constitutional guarantee cannot protect you in theory while leaving you vulnerable in practice. If a right can be put on pause, even briefly, it stops being a right and becomes a privilege handed out at the state’s convenience. That principle should trouble anyone, regardless of where they stand on gun ownership.

The Bigger Ripple Effect

This case, Ortega v. Grisham, could ripple far beyond New Mexico. Smith noted the 10th Circuit’s reasoning could influence courts in other states with waiting periods, such as California or Illinois. If acquisition is constitutionally protected, then any universal delay – whether three days, seven, or longer – may fall under the same logic. That’s why both activists and attorneys are hailing the ruling as a landmark step forward.

The Stakes for Ordinary Americans

Ultimately, the debate isn’t just about court rulings. It’s about real lives. As Noir reminded viewers, criminals act without delay. When governments impose waiting periods, they gamble with citizens’ ability to survive encounters with violence. Smith provided the constitutional framework, but Noir captured the raw reality: in that midnight moment when the door breaks, the law’s “cooling-off” period isn’t protection. It’s paralysis.

A Clear Signal

The ruling against New Mexico’s waiting period doesn’t end the legal battle – it sends the case back to a lower court. But for now, it marks a clear signal: courts are recognizing that waiting periods may violate the Second Amendment. As Colion Noir put it bluntly, “If your rights can be put on hold for a week, they aren’t rights at all.” And as Mark W. Smith explained, the Constitution does not tolerate turning fundamental freedoms into privileges. Together, their words highlight the same core message: laws that disarm the law-abiding in the name of safety may only create more victims.